Action by T.B. Stackhouse against the Pure Oil Company and others. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Messrs. Thomas, Lumpkin Cain and W.F. Wimberly, for appellants, cite: "Guaranty" defined: 68 S.C. 13; 48 S.E., 550; 71 S.C. 287; 51 S.E., 96; 87 S.C. 199; 99 S.E., 227; 115 U.S. 524; 6 S.Ct., 173; 39 L.Ed., 480; 1 L.R.A. (N.S.), 305; 159 S.C. 472; 157 S.E., 805; 28 C.J., 932; 55 N.E., 1003. Consideration: 157 S.C. 371; 164 S.E., 641; 5 Am. Dec., 317; 12 R.C.L., 1076. Liability of guarantor: 72 S.C. 424; 52 S.E., 117; 28 C. J., 999, 1001; 41 S.C. 331; 13 S.E., 649. Messrs. Melton Belser, for respondent, cite: Contractto pay rent: 85 S.C. 94; 124 S.C. 435; 126 S.C. 517; 167 S.C. 376; 28 C.J., 891; 169 S.C. 16; 100 S.C. 1; 230 U.S. 100; 57 L.Ed., 1410; 68 S.C. 13. As to consideration: 158 S.C. 411; 28 C.J., 920; 68 S.C. 13; 85 S.C. 94; 126 S.C. 517; 124 S.C. 435; 167 S.C. 376.

Action by Edward F. Lowndes against the McCabe Fertilizer Company and another. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Mr. H.L. Erckmann, for appellants, cites: McCabe letternot a personal guaranty: 87 S.C. 199. Where services renderedafter termination of contract are of different characterno presumption that same salary will be paid: 39 C.J., 50. Guaranty made after salary accrued and without consideration: 6 S.C. 159; 41 S.C. 81; 28 C.J., 915; 4 McC., 409; 68 S.C. 13. Guarantor not liable for interest: Rice L., 21; 98 S.C. 314; Sec. 4273, 3 Code 1922 unconstitutional; 133 S.C. 470; 140 S.C. 42. Accord and satisfaction: 83 S.C. 80 142 S.C. 102; 1 C.J., 562. Mr. Nath. B. Barnwell, for respondent, cites: The accountbore interest: 1 Strob. L., 456; 2 N. McC., 395; 2 Strob. Eq., 166; 2 McC. Eq., 207; 2 McC. Eq., 185; 39 C.J., 162; 1 N. McC., 45; Cheves, 61; 2 Speers, 595; 49 S.C. 449; 3 C.J., 197; 1 McC., 449; 3 Rich. L., 191; 86 S.C. 8. Accountstated: 76 S.C. 180; 122 S.E., 767. Presumption thatsalary was at same rate as under old contract: 39 C.J., 49. Sufficient consideration to support McCabe guaranty: 44 L.R.A. (N.S.), 432; 28 C.J., 919; 68 S.C. 13; 2 Daniel Neg. Inst. (3rd Ed.), Sec. 1759; 28 C.J., 917; 68 S.C. 1; 28 C.J., 887; 117 S.E., 356; 3 Hill, 41; 2 Speers, 344; 28 S.C. 476; 60 L.R.A., 870; 8 Rich. L., 416; 5 Strob. L., 126; 39 S.C. 323; 78 S.C. 408; 2 Bailey 56; 1 Strob., 89; 3 Strob., 532. Now estopped to deny validity: 28 C.J., 927.

Action by A.B. Brannon against G.B. Harris and L.E. Garner. From directed verdict for plaintiff the defendant Garner appeals. Messrs. J. Clough Wallace and Jno. K. Hamblin, for appellant, cite: Creditor chargeable to debtor for loss arisingfrom his negligence in not collecting on collateralpledged for the debts: 37 S.C. 211. Damages recoverablefor depreciation in securities: 53 S.C. 132; 91 S.C. 122; 91 S.C. 323; 3 A. E. Enc. L. (2nd Ed.) 733; 22 Id. 899; 27 Id. 516; 22 Id. 902. Acts which will discharge asurety: 3 Strob. Ed. 59; 10 S.C. 197; 10 S.C. 235; 68 S.C. 13; 83 S.C. 553. Messrs. Barron, Barron Barron, for respondent, cite: Creditor not called on to record mortgage for benefit ofthird party except upon request: Strob. Eq. 64, 91 S.C. 316.

entered into another contract with plaintiff,the terms, provisions and conditions of which were similarto those of the contract upon which this action is based,defendant, in the absence of notice to the contrary, couldlegally expect and require plaintiff to perform under thiscontract as it had under the previous one: 219 S.C. 263, 64 S.E.2d 885; 180 S.C. 138, 185 S.E. 180; 124 S.C. 280, 117 S.E. 539; 198 S.C. 355, 17 S.E.2d 869; 72 S.C. 368, 51 S.E. 983; 208 S.C. 433, 38 S.E.2d 495. J. Reese Daniel, Esq., of Columbia, for Respondent, cites: As to parole evidence not being allowed to vary theterms of a written contract which is complete and unambiguous: C.J.S., Subrogation, Sec. 46; 242 S.C. 226, 130 S.E.2d 631. As to an absolute guarantor, guaranteeingpayment if the payee repossesses the security "forany reason" and waiving all notice of default, demand andpresentment, not being allowed to complain of a lack ofdiligence in collecting from the principal debtor: 68 S.C. 1, 46 S.E. 550; 68 S.C. 13, 46 S.E. 545. March 16, 1966.

of Orangeburg, and J.H. Behling, of St. George, for Appellants, cite: As tothe violation of a statute, while "negligence per se", not supportinga recovery of damages unless such violation proximatelycaused or contributed to the injury complained of: 193 S.C. 309, 8 S.E.2d 321; 109 S.C. 119, 95 S.E. 357; 77 S.C. 37, 58 S.E. 3; 140 S.C. 123, 138 S.E. 675, 11 A.L.R. 1411. As to appellant's acts not being theproximate cause of the injury: 122 S.C. 17, 14 S.E. 761; 115 S.C. 177, 104 S.E. 567, 13 A.L.R. 1268. As toclaimant's contributory negligence being the true cause ofthe accident: 213 S.C. 413, 49 S.E.2d 725; 177 S.C. 461, 181 S.E. 642; 109 S.C. 78, 95 S.E. 133, 134 L.R.A. 1918-D 1193; 47 A.L.R. 699, 285 Pa. 477; 62 A.L.R. 967, 49 R.I. 32; 79 A.L.R. 1270, 163 Wn. 153; 10 S.E.2d 503, 131 A.L.R. 558; 182 S.C. 441, 189 S.E. 652. Mr. J.D. Parler, of St. George, for Respondent, cites: Asto the entire record in the case being before the Court andtherefore must be considered in its entirety: 68 S.C. 13, 46 S.E. 545; 91 S.C. 439, 74 S.E. 827. As to rule that Court,upon motion for non-suit, must consider the evidence, andall inferences to be drawn therefrom, in light most favorableto non-moving party: 43 S.E.2d 201, 210 S.C. 458. Asto burden on appellant to show that respondent's contributorynegligence was the proximate cause: 38 Am. Jur. 899; 165 S.C. 15, 162 S.E. 574; 196 S.C. 259, 13 S.E.2d 137; 179 S.C. 493, 184 S.E. 96. April 4, 1950.

Considerationfor the Assignment: 87 S.C. 566, 70 S.E., 296; 24 Am.Jur., 195; 147 Minn., 98, 179 N.W., 683; 116 Me., 468. 102 Atl., 301, 2 A.L.R., 1429; 140 S.E., 277; 91 N.C. 265; 198 S.E., 496; 187 S.E., 27; 5 Ga. App.2d 578; 63 S.E., 652. As to the Assignment Being a PreferenceUnder the Statute: 64 S.C. 354, 42 S.E., 169. Messrs. Willcox, Hardee, Houck Wallace, of Florence, S.C. Counsel for Respondent, cite: As to the ValuableConsideration for the Assignment: 193 S.C. 118, 7 S.E.2d 841; 24 Am. Jur., 193-194; 23 A.L.R., 548. As toIntent to Defraud Creditor in Making and Accepting theAssignment: 142 S.C. 78, 140 S.E., 238; 64 S.C. 364, 42 S.E., 169; 134 S.C. 162, 132 S.E., 473. As to the AssignmentBeing a Preference Under the Statute: 42 S.C. 475, 20 S.E., 405; 44 S.C. 183, 21 S.E., 635; 29 S.C. 491, 7 S.E., 838; 134 S.C. 233, 132 S.E., 48; 191 S.C. 384, 1 S.E.2d 797. Admissibility of Testimony Taken inSupplementary Proceedings: 22 C.J., 343; 47 S.C. 578, 25 S.E., 127; 75 S.E., 369; 68 S.C. 13, 46 S.E., 545; 20 Am. Jur., Sec. 557. August 7, 1945.

A qualified privilege is lost ifmalice is present: 49 So., 888; 59 So., 647; 45 So., 809; 73 S.E., 382; 158 Ill. App., 20; 189 Ill. App., 1; 92 Atl., 284; 94 Atl., 1103; 154 N.Y.S., 486; 113 S.W. 574; 173 S.W., 67. Distinguished: 2 Brev., 76. The privilege thatsurrounds alleged libellous statements uttered and publishedin judicial or legislative proceedings does not extend orapply to public officers in general: 129 N.W., 147. Questionsof fact not considered on appeal: 40 S.C. 114; 51 S.C. 560; 58 S.C. 83; 118 S.C. 195; 50 S.C. 214; 93 S.C. 272. Where different inferences may be drawn from sametestimony, inference to be drawn is for jury: 54 S.C. 498; 91 S.C. 439; 68 S.C. 13; 91 S.C. 439; 59 S.C. 268; "Malice": 193 S.W. 463; 38 C.J., 349, 353; 116 Atl., 769; 15 S.C. 409. As to damages: 15 S.C. 177; 52 S.C. 323, 332; 115 S.C. 168; 36 L.R.A., 535; 1 Sutherland on Damages, Sec. 36; 189 Fed., 980; 195 Fed., 740; 67 So., 391; 121 S.W. 268; 136 S.W. 651; 173 S.W., 728; 127 N.W., 481; 76 Atl., 609; 78 Atl., 609; 144 N.W., 149; 105 S.W. 709; 101 Pac., 322; 21 Ann. Cas., 502; 86 Atl., 824; 133 Pac., 351; 97 S.W. 1039; 106 S.W. 463; 129 Pac., 1090; 32 App. D.C., 442; 116 Pac., 110; 163 Ill. App., 282; 179 Ill. App., 307; 98 N.E., 1048; 17 C.J., 836; 112 S.W. 995; 17 C.J., 836; 52 S.C. 334; 99 S.C. 298; 17 C.J., 832.

The case, in our opinion, does not come within the provisions of the Negotiable Instrument Act (Civ. Code 1922, §§ 3652-3847). The question raised is decided by the decisions of this Court in the following cases: Carroll County Savings Bank v. Strother, 28 S.C. 504; 6 S.E., 313; Equitable Surety Co. v. Illinois Surety Co., 108 S.C. 370; 94 S.E., 822; Fales v. Browning, 68 S.C. 24; 46 S.E., 545. This exception is therefore sustained. The first of the defendant's exceptions imputes error to his Honor, the presiding Judge, in holding the verification of the complaint to be sufficient, after hearing the motion of defendant to require the plaintiff to accept service of an unverified answer.

Messrs. Dean, Cothran Wyche, for appellant, cite: When master liable for acts of servant: 39 C.J., 1272; 26 L.R.A., 739; 102 S.C. 146. Proper to admit evidenceshowing witness prejudiced or biased: 99 S.C. 231; 30 A. E., 1091; 39 So., 371. Evidence must be viewed inthe light of probable result on the minds of the jury, opinionof Court controlling; error to refuse new trial: 133 S.C. 294; 130 S.E., 888. Mr. J. Robert Martin, for respondent, cites: Groundsfor nonsuit: Circuit Court rule, 18; 98 S.C. 291. Presumptionof agency: 68 S.C. 13; 102 S.C. 146; 97 S.C. 171; 124 S.C. 342; 127 S.C. 351; 76 S.C. 539. Indiscretion of Court to prevent counsel from asking intimidatingquestions to witnesses while on stand: 40 Cyc., 2661, 2672; 92 So., 528; 39 So., 371; 121 N.W., 791. TheCourt only held defendant to exercise of ordinary care anddefendant, taking the entire charge, must show prejudice: 93 S.C. 420; 96 S.C. 385; 103 S.C. 343; 108 S.C. 397; 134 S.C. 412; 134 S.E., 252. Failure to conform toCircuit Court rule II: 124 S.C. 473; 99 S.C. 250; 78 S.C. 398. Granting of new trial on after discovered evidencein discretion of trial Court: 134 S.E., 518; 131 S.C. 25; 70 S.C. 448; 95 S.C. 474; 109 S.C. 295; 74 S.C. 376. July 12, 1927.

Messrs. Sawyer Kennedy, for appellant, cite: Bankcannot lend its credit for sole benefit of another: 66 S.C. 491; 27 C.C.A., 171; 160 Fed., 642; 173 Mo., 153; 72 S.W., 1059; 32 L.R.A. (N.S.), 544, 547 and 553; 17 L.R.A. (N.S.), 526; 7 C.J., 784, 807, 814 and 815. Ultra vires acts of corporation not binding: 167 U.S. 362; 42 L.Ed., 198; 32 L.R.A. (N.S.), 553. StateCourts must follow U.S. Supreme Court in construingpowers of national banks: 173 Mo., 153; 72 S.W. 1059; 27 C.C.A., 171; 49 U.S. App., 496; 82 Fed., 799. Powersof national banks: 167 U.S. 362; 42 L.Ed., 198; 17 Sup. Ct. Rep., 831; 139 U.S. 67; 35 L.Ed., 107; 11 Sup. Ct. Rep., 496; 8 A.L.R., 245; 1916 A.L.R., 584. Ultravires acts of corporation not binding: 167 U.S. 362; 42 L.Ed., 198; 32 L.R.A. (N.S.), 553; 7 R.C.L., 673; 14a C.J., 308, 508 and 582; 10 Cyc., 1148. Cases distinguished: 103 S.C. 783 66 L.Ed., 594. Mr. John K. Hamblin, for respondents, cites: Liabilityof national banks on contracts of guaranty: 87 S.C. 387; 68 S.C. 13; 66 L.Ed., 593; 103 S.E., 786; 114 N.E., 749; 77 Fed., 85; 216 U.S. 106; 12 R.C.L., 1081. Corporationreceives benefits from its ultra vires contracts: 77 Fed., 85; 96 U.S. 351; 114 N.E., 749. Powers of nationalbanks: Barnes' Fed. Code, 1919, Sec. 9161; 321 U.S. 140; 223 U.S. 510; 202 U.S. 300; 200 U.S. 425; 167 U.S. 367; 152 U.S. 231; 93 U.S. 127. Liabilityof bank for unauthorized acts of its officers: 229 U.S. 512; 152 U.S. 352; 77 Fed., 85; 10 Wall., 644. Evidencenot objected to at trial: 95 S.C. 9; 93 S.C. 168; 88 S.C. 217; 87 S.C. 434; 85 S.C. 221. October 26, 1926.